Author
Topic: Are genetically modified foods bad? (Read 2464 times)

Sorry to force you bsck i to vet medicine. . Note, I do not drink "organic" milk; i like pasteurization and the reduced risk of listeria. Indeed my personal bias is to treat the organic craze with skeptism. I expect GM crops to be tested and regulated, what concerns me about Masanto, is that they used their clout to try to suppress claims about them and didn't even do so in the form of a lawsuit. I also think that they should not have the right to suppress farmers from claiming not to use rBGH. I would probably happily drink rBGH milk if it was deemed safe in an honest open fashion. Organic farmers charge more and typically, I buy what is cheapest.

You do not have studies showing your point about the INF-1 increase being negligible compared to what humans produce naturally? I didn't notice how much INF-1 was being

The survey paper in question had a lot of references, being a survey paper. I am not qualified to evaluate the quality of ghe studies it was quoting but that is the info causing the Canadian regulators yo change their mindd. If the milk production on cows without the problem is higher, thd 25% incresse in the disease could still mean a net incresse in milk production.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Note, I do not drink "organic" milk; i like pasteurization and the reduced risk of listeria.

Organic milk is pasteurized. In fact, it is pasteurized using a different method from the one used for non-organic milk, and one of the side benefits of this is that organic milk will typically stay fresh for anywhere from two to four months (as opposed to non-organic milk, where you might get two weeks if you're lucky). The thing in particular that I like about this is that I can place an order with my grocery service for eight or ten gallons of milk, then not have to worry about buying milk again for another month or two. I'd buy even more milk at a time than that if there was room for it in my fridge.

I have been watching the thread, and although I see it's mostly about GMO vs. Organic, I feel that this very question ties into much of the USA economy and health care system.

Now, since we are speaking about GMO foods, in a nutshell, I would say they are bad, and I mean bad as in traditionally unhealthy for you. Now, I'm usually a Bill Maher nut-head who agrees with his stance on that our GMO food we are buying is horse-shit, and it makes us sick and obese, and that it drives us to go to the doctor.

Now that I have said that, I have been watching his show Real Time, and for a couple weeks in economic times, they go and talk about our food processing.

Our food processing is directly going into the problems of the poor health of people and the way our government takes care of it. Because of our growing population, our food is going to become more and more processed and less organic, which is understandable.

Concerning the people saying organic is a word to slap on a double price-tag as opposed to actually being healthier is both right and wrong. They are correct in that with the way food works, organic is an excuse for a higher price tag. The problem is, that doesn't mean it is not healthier for you, and in the long run, it's better to go organic than GMO. What is going on in the USA's market where we are selling shit, er I mean food, we consume the stuff like no other, and we go out and get fat, get the health problems and get sick and thus into the debt we go. The reasoning for this is because of Government subsidiaries. Our government itself promotes GMO, things that would tear up cows and chickens to be fed, and punishes Organic crop growers, because they receive no subsidiaries. Behind the scenes, we are in the land of McDonalds and fast food as opposed to healthy, delicious, organic alternatives is because this is what our government wants. Corn farms have far more pensions and leeway than growers of the healthy foods and other vegetables.

Honestly though, I think the reasonings for such are because of some of the people from the far-right who are demanding less government over food, where as Maher said, eating a can of lard is seen as virtuous since it's our freedom and right to eat that. The problem is, that can of lard they eat, everybody ends up paying for in the end because of the lard eaters getting sick and having to go into the hospital under our current system. However though, I disagree with the left attempting to ban any and all foods they deem unhealthy, like soda for example.

I think what is best for the system is, although sadly we are going to need more processing, it would be better for the government to not necessarily ban foods that they deem unhealthy, but rather, force everybody to tell us everything they put into the meat or whatever, give tougher regulation as to what Nutrition information and it's accuracy can be printed, and instead of promoting unhealthy processing and boosting mass production of corn instead, let us give leeway and promotion to local, organic, and healthy farmers who give us assorted variety and natural-fed cows and chickens and pigs instead of all this processing with chemicals, preservatives etc.

If we allow our government to come in and alter our methods of mass production properly, I think we could acheive a win-win-win situation where everybody will be eating healthier, cleaner food without obesity or the harmful side effects, and we aren't having food banned left and right like sodas or king-sized candy bars, all while the healthy food is cheaper unlike now where it costs an arm and a leg for organic products. Junk food is still junk food, but it is better to alter the processing of it so that way it's not as harmful or even a unique way of healthy as opposed to the chemicals etc.

I'm pretty sure that I ate genetically modified food at the movies last weekend. I swear it was the first time in at least a decade that I didn't get a popcorn kernel stuck in my tooth! IDK what they are doing to the corn this days, it seems to cost $10 for a small back of almost kerneless popcorn, so they gotta be doing something fishy...

Logged

Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

The argument about them getting sicker may fail. Unhealthy people die younger and often die shortly after their prioductive years

Personally, i think government regulation is good, as long as the objectives are correct.

Quote

t would be better for the government to not necessarily ban foods that they deem unhealthy, but rather, force everybody to tell us everything they put into the meat or whatever, give tougher regulation as to what Nutrition information and it's accuracy can be printed, and instead of promoting unhealthy processing and boosting mass production of corn

I agree with you comment on labels.

I wonder if corn is that unhealthy? Perhaps it is how much we consume and in the ultra-processed state?

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

The argument about them getting sicker may fail. Unhealthy people die younger and often die shortly after their prioductive years

Personally, i think government regulation is good, as long as the objectives are correct.

What you quoted me on doesn't show up, so it's kind of hard for me to follow you. As for the regulation however, I agree as well. The problem is, this is one area our government is being horrible on. 2 examples would include people using carbon monoxide in our meat to make our meat look more fresh than it actually is. There is no law forbidding this practice, nor being required to inform the customer/consumer that they used carbon monoxide to make the meat more fresh looking.

Another one would be transglutamine. Europe easily has this banned, but the USA and Australia being another one, has no regulation on this, and does not forbid it's practice or require companies to label whether or not they used this meat glue to make whole meat.

One more secret as for labels. Trans Fat. The fat that proves to clog up arteries. Believe it or not, the government requires a food item must have either .5 or .6 grams of Transfat to be posted on the Nutrition information. This means that despite the fact the nutrition states 0g of Trans Fat, there is actually .1g to .4g of Trans Fat, and you can tell by carefully reading the ingredients. There are many ingredients, but I only know of a couple, that no matter what, contains trans fat in them and if you see the ingredient, your product has trans fat despite the fact it says 0g. The big ingredient I know about this however are the "partially-hydrogenated ... oil" ingredients.

I wonder if corn is that unhealthy? Perhaps it is how much we consume and in the ultra-processed state?

It's not the corn itself that is unhealthy. It's not the corn syrup we are talking about. It is about the "High Fructose" and as you said, the ultra-processed state. Corn as it is, as a grain, is healthy for us. The high fructose is what is unhealthy about corn, yet, that is generally what is in almost every food product you purchase at the store. Trust me, go to a grocery store, and every item you intend to purchase, look at them. The extreme majority of them except for fruits, vegetables, and water, will say High Fructose Corn Syrup on it. So, it would agree that we well over-consume a ton of High Fructose. Corn was never intended for this practice, but since it is now, we have such an oversaturated demand for corn, hence the subsidies for corn farms.

Without the subsitdy, either foreign corn would be used or alternative sweetners that would have the same effect of raising one's insulin levels when consumed in excess.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Without the subsitdy, either foreign corn would be used or alternative sweetners that would have the same effect of raising one's insulin levels when consumed in excess.

that corn product is in EVERYTHING

Are yiu saying my coffee has it?

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

I think that is a poor choice of words. Intent. There is no intent. Intention is the action of an agent.

I think what you mean is since people evolved along side corn, our bodies can digest it in a way that is beneficial to us. But we did not evolve along side HFCS, so our digestive systems are not adapted to deal well with it. It makes us fat and diabetic.